Secularism, Muhammed Cartoons and The Sikh Temple Shooting

humphrys

Brown Bomber wrote: »

If you take Shariah away from Islam there is nothing left,

You are a fanatic.

Religion should be a private matter. It should not be forced on people by law. Islamic law is a disgrace. Laws should be secular.

Sonics2k

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Unfortunately it's not that simple, you cannot simply pack up your easel and crayons after drawing Mohammed as a pig and say "We saved freedom of speech lads, well done". The damage is already done. These are photographs from a Muslim's gravesite which were vandalised this week in an anti-Muslim hate crime which referenced Mohammed and threatened violence.

[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

There was 7 attacks against Mosques in the US in 10 days around the Sikh attack, including a Mosque being burned to the ground.
http://www.salon.com/2012/08/14/eight_attacks_11_days/

Today in Germany anti-Muslim, right-wing extremists were placing cartoons of Mohammed outside Mosques as an act of protest.
http://www.thelocal.de/society/20120817-44415.html

Because DMD is to blame for graffiti and bigotry? Don't be daft, this kind of stuff happens all the time to people of all backgrounds, Jewish, Catholics, Black people, gay people.

And it's not as if no Muslim has ever defaced someone elses statues or symbols. Totally innocent, right? They were forced into everything.

All those suicide bombings against civilians, they were forced to do it some decades before DMD even existed.

humphrys

Brown Bomber wrote: »

A final point is that the original statement was that Mark Humphrys was an "extremist Zionist" like Breivik.

In Humphrys own words he was "like me".

Again you are deliberately misleading.

I was talking about Breivik's public posts to document.no in 2009-10, which are unexceptional and mainstream:
http://markhumphrys.com/norway.attacks.html#document.no
The Chief of Norway's intelligence police in fact said these posts were normal and uninteresting: "He has more or less been a moderate."

I was not talking about Breivik's manifesto released in 2011, in which he reveals he is a totalitarian and a terrorist who wants to bomb western cities like Al Qaeda does. He is nothing like me at all:
http://markhumphrys.com/norway.attacks.html#manifesto

Unfortunately he did not release his manifesto until the day of the killings. If he had released it earlier, it would have been universally condemned, and he would have got on the security radar.

You are trying to make it seem like I found his manifesto agreeable, which is disgustingly dishonest, like all your posts.

Brown Bomber

humphrys wrote: »

Religion should be a private matter. It should not be forced on people by law.

humphrys wrote: »

Islamic law is a disgrace. Laws should be secular.

I agree laws should be secular and that the Saudi/Iranian etc systems of crime and punishment are a disgrace, as is much of the systems of their police state. However, that is not what we were discussing, was it? I said that if you remove Shariah from Islam there is nothing left. NOT if you remove some aspects of Shariah enforced by fundamentalist dictators.

If you honestly can't tell the difference then perhaps you would do well to avoid "counterjihad" "experts" like white/Jewish supremacist David Yerushalmi, who is the main propogandist. In this area.

Naturally, Yerushalmi is also a part of the professional Islamophobia network.

(they all seem to be except for you, you are really missing out!)

David Yerushalmi, founder of the Society of Americans for
National Existence

David Yerushalmi, 56, is the founder of the think tank the Society of Americansfor National Existence, which first proposed legislation in 2007 to make adherenceto Sharia “a felony punishable by 20 years in prison,”47 and is the general counsel for many of the think tanks and grassroots organizations in the Islamophobia network. The Anti-Defamation League reviewed Yerushalmi’s activities and concluded that he has a “record of anti-Muslim, anti-immi-David Yerushalmionce described “blacks as the most murderous of peoples.”

In a 2006 essay titled “On Race: A Tentative Discussion,” Yerushalmi described “blacks as the most murderous of peoples.”49 He is the general counsel for the Center for Security Policy and the co-author of CSP’s “Shariah: The Threat to America” report.50 He also serves as legal counsel for the anti-Muslim group Stop Islamization of America, led by Robert Spencer, whom we profile below, and Pamela Geller, whom we profile in the media chapter of our report, along with her influential blog, Atlas Shrugs.
...
Yerushalmi received $274,883 from CSP for consulting services. His organization the Society of Americans for National Existence reported $385,586 in revenue in 2007, $389,841 in 2008, and $310,479 in 2009, according to the organization’s latest tax filings.

Incidentally, do you have a problem with Halakhic Law in democratic societies?

Brown Bomber

Sonics2k wrote: »

Because DMD is to blame for graffiti and bigotry? Don't be daft, this kind of stuff happens all the time to people of all backgrounds, Jewish, Catholics, Black people, gay people.

Yes it does, and it's all awful. But WHY does it happen??

Sonics2k wrote: »

And it's not as if no Muslim has ever defaced someone elses statues or symbols. Totally innocent, right? They were forced into everything.

No. Anyone who desecrates a grave is scum. Even moreso if it is religiously/racially motivated.

Sonics2k wrote: »

All those suicide bombings against civilians, they were forced to do it some decades before DMD even existed.

Bigotry predates DMD.

humphrys

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Incidentally, do you have a problem with Halakhic Law in democratic societies?

Don't be stupid. Jewish codes are voluntary. Jews are not forced to follow them.

Sharia law - in force to some extent all over the Islamic world - is coercive, and forces Islamic law on non-Muslims and ex-Muslims and liberal Muslims alike, jailing them and even executing them for infringements.

To compare the two shows both your prejudice against Jews and your reactionary right-wing Islamic beliefs.

Dades

humphrys wrote: »

Don't be stupid.

This thread is running a fine line and remarks like this are going to hasten its demise. I don't care what history you two have - reign it in.

Nodin

humphrys wrote: »

Don't be stupid. Jewish codes are voluntary. Jews are not forced to follow them.

.............

Thats debatable in certain places
http://www.violenceisnotourculture.org/node/474

Sonics2k

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Yes it does, and it's all awful. But WHY does it happen??

Because for thousands of years, people can be intolerant and moronic. It happens on both sides.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

No. Anyone who desecrates a grave is scum. Even moreso if it is religiously/racially motivated.

I agree. Same goes for anyone who murders in the name of religion.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Bigotry predates DMD.

Why yes, yes it does.

And after all that. Please tell me BB, how exactly is DMD to blame for this neo-nazi's actions?

humphrys

Nodin wrote: »

Thats debatable in certain places
http://www.violenceisnotourculture.org/node/474

Those actions are despicable, but if you read the article you will see that they are also illegal.

Brown Bomber

Sonics2k wrote: »

Because for thousands of years, people can be intolerant and moronic. It happens on both sides.

Agreed. Though that doesn't answer the question. The question is WHY they are that way. Are we born with prejudices or are the learned?

For example, were the Confederate states generally pro-slavery because it's people were born racist or was the racism acquired? Was the KKK more popular in the South vs the North due to some genetic defect or was the racism learned?

DMD, of itself is not responsible. However, it is self-evident that it reinforces negative stereotypes of Muslims and it has been shown that the prevelance of these stereotypes can lead to hate crimes. Therefore it can't be excluded that it may have contributed to this specific hate crime on some level.

Brown Bomber

humphrys wrote: »

Don't be stupid. Jewish codes are voluntary. Jews are not forced to follow them.

Sharia law - in force to some extent all over the Islamic world - is coercive, and forces Islamic law on non-Muslims and ex-Muslims and liberal Muslims alike, jailing them and even executing them for infringements.

To compare the two shows both your prejudice against Jews and your reactionary right-wing Islamic beliefs.

Right, so Halacha = Good, Shariah = Bad even though they are essentially the same things i.e a way of life and a system of rules and practices.

Sonics2k

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Agreed. Though that doesn't answer the question. The question is WHY they are that way. Are we born with prejudices or are the learned?

For example, were the Confederate states generally pro-slavery because it's people were born racist or was the racism acquired? Was the KKK more popular in the South vs the North due to some genetic defect or was the racism learned?

I believe, personally, that Racism is taught. Children are not inherently racist, they may point out differences, but they also do this based on hair, size, glasses and so on.

In the example of the Confederate States, it would be the same. A child would not naturally believe a black person to be a lesser than them. Things like that were learnt because black people were -treated- like second class citizens with no rights, and so it goes on until the change comes in.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

DMD, of itself is not responsible. However, it is self-evident that it reinforces negative stereotypes of Muslims and it has been shown that the prevelance of these stereotypes can lead to hate crimes. Therefore it can't be excluded that it may have contributed to this specific hate crime on some level.

I'm going to address DMD as it was intended originally, and used by people like myself.
In the West, we openly make jokes about Jesus, Buddha, Moses and a good few Mohammed ones and so on. We have done so for quite a long time.

Then suddenly, people are being threatened with death and execution because they dared to draw Mohammed. That is what went wrong. Psychopaths threatened the lives of the innocent, and so in a non-aggressive protest, we decided basically along the lines of this; "No, we're not scared. We will not cower down and hide because you've threatened us, we believe in freedom, not oppression. So shove your rules."

If you make an exception for one group, you have to make them for everyone else to. And so we lose our freedom of expression, speech and yes humour.

humphrys

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Right, so Halacha = Good, Shariah = Bad even though they are essentially the same things i.e a way of life and a system of rules and practices.

Halacha is bizarre religious nonsense, but it is voluntary, so who cares.

Shariah is not voluntary, so it is an abuse of human rights.

All over the Islamic world, people are arrested and jailed all the time for infringements of sharia. Do you not know about this? Or do you support this?

Brown Bomber

Sonics2k wrote: »

I believe, personally, that Racism is taught. Children are not inherently racist, they may point out differences, but they also do this based on hair, size, glasses and so on.

In the example of the Confederate States, it would be the same. A child would not naturally believe a black person to be a lesser than them. Things like that were learnt because black people were -treated- like second class citizens with no rights, and so it goes on until the change comes in.

And that is my point. Stereotyping Muslims by drawing their Prophet as an animal, terrorist, paedophile etc fans the flames of bigotry.

Sonics2k wrote: »

I'm going to address DMD as it was intended originally, and used by people like myself.
In the West, we openly make jokes about Jesus, Buddha, Moses and a good few Mohammed ones and so on. We have done so for quite a long time. Then suddenly, people are being threatened with death and execution because they dared to draw Mohammed. That is what went wrong. Psychopaths threatened the lives of the innocent, and so in a non-aggressive protest, we decided basically along the lines of this; "No, we're not scared. We will not cower down and hide because you've threatened us, we believe in freedom, not oppression. So shove your rules."

If you make an exception for one group, you have to make them for everyone else to. And so we lose our freedom of expression, speech and yes humour.

1. What nobody seems to recognise is that Revolution Muslim were a tiny group of US born Jews and Christians who had only recently converted to Islam; one was even a Jewish settler in stolen Palestinian land. The guy who made the threat was called Jesse Curtis Morton. Point being, they were no more representative of Islam that I am, they have/had absolutely no grassroots support whatsoever and have absolutely no mandate to speak for Muslims - anywhere.

2. Why single out Muslims for punishment, given:

As Balloon-Juice’s DougJ notes, everyone from Phil Donahue and Ashliegh Banfield to Bill Maher and Sinead O’Connor can tell you about that first-hand. As can the cable television news reporters who were banned by their corporate executives from running stories that reflected negatively on Bush and the war. When he was Mayor of New York, Rudy Giuliani was fixated on using the power of his office to censor art that offended his Catholic sensibilities. The Bush administration banned mainstream Muslim scholars even from entering the U.S. to teach. The Dixie Chicks were deluged with death threats for daring to criticize the Leader, forcing them to apologize out of fear for their lives. Campaigns to deny tenure to academicians, or appointments to politicial officials, who deviate from Israel orthodoxy are common and effective. Responding to religious outrage, a Congressional investigation was formally launched and huge fines issued all because Janet Jackson’s breast was displayed for a couple of seconds on television.



All that’s to say nothing of the endless examples of religious-motivated violence by Christian and Jewish extremists designed to intimidate and suppress ideas offensive to their religious dogma (I’m also pretty sure the people doing this and this are not Muslim). And, contrary to Douthat’s misleading suggestion, hate speech laws have been used for censorious purposes far beyond punishing speech offensive to Muslims — including, for instance, by Christian groups invoking such laws to demand the banning of plays they dislike.
http://www.salon.com/2010/04/26/douthat_4/

Brown Bomber

humphrys wrote: »

Halacha is bizarre religious nonsense, but it is voluntary, so who cares.

Shariah is not voluntary, so it is an abuse of human rights.

All over the Islamic world, people are arrested and jailed all the time for infringements of sharia. Do you not know about this? Or do you support this?

Halacha is more than just "bizarre religous nonsense". It is also supremacist, ethnocentric, sexist and oppressive - especially to menstruating Orthodox Jewish women. An Hasidic male is expected to thank God each day that he wasn't born a woman or a gentile.

And it could even be a matter of life and death.

“If a gentile were to get injured in a car accident during Sabbath, and he is brought to the hospital — Israel must not treat him“…
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/05/23/prominent-israeli-rabbi-doctors-shouldnt-treat-gentiles-on-the-sabbath/

Point being if you, in Ireland have a Shariah compliant Muslim neighbour and a Hasidic Jewish neighbour then there is little difference.

humphrys

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Halacha is more than just "bizarre religous nonsense". It is also supremacist, ethnocentric, sexist and oppressive

I'll agree with all that for Halacha (and double it for Sharia).

But I still don't care about Halacha because it has no legal status. It is voluntary. If you want to follow the rules of some long-dead religious crackpot, that is your right. You have no right to force other people to follow them.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And it could even be a matter of life and death.

Only if such nonsense actually had the force of law, which it doesn't.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Point being if you, in Ireland have a Shariah compliant Muslim neighbour and a Hasidic Jewish neighbour then there is little difference.

Yes there is no difference in Ireland. That is because neither of their absurd rules has the status of law.

But that is far from true in the world as a whole. Sharia is enforced to some extent all over the Islamic world. Sharia law abuses human rights all over the world today.

I suspect you know this. You don't seem to care.

Penn

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And that is my point. Stereotyping Muslims by drawing their Prophet as an animal, terrorist, paedophile etc fans the flames of bigotry.


1. What nobody seems to recognise is that Revolution Muslim were a tiny group of US born Jews and Christians who had only recently converted to Islam; one was even a Jewish settler in stolen Palestinian land. The guy who made the threat was called Jesse Curtis Morton. Point being, they were no more representative of Islam that I am, they have/had absolutely no grassroots support whatsoever and have absolutely no mandate to speak for Muslims - anywhere.

2. Why single out Muslims for punishment, given:

But again BB, we don't "single out Muslims" because we draw cartoons of ALL religions, as evident by The Funny Side of Religion thread. If we don't treat every religion in the same way, and instead treat Muslims with kid gloves, then that's doing nothing more than segregating them and treating them differently via positive discrimination. If you really think that Draw Muhammad Day is responsible for instigating anywhere near as many hate crimes against Muslims as extremist Muslim factions do, you are so far removed from reality you could be about to fall off a cliff, hold up a sign saying uh-oh, crash to the ground and be fine.

It's not the cartoons which cause the hate crimes. It's the actions of the extremist groups on which the cartoons are based. Remove them, and even if the cartoons still existed there wouldn't be an issue with regards hate crimes. And those extremist groups existed before the drawings, and would still exist without the drawings.

It's up to those who see the drawings to decide how they want to react. If you're a Muslim and you see the cartoons and decide to become an extremist, then you need a reality check. Either that, or there were many other issues already swaying them in that direction, which meant that even without the cartoons, something was already going to push them over the edge.

If you're not a Muslim and you see the cartoons and decide to commit a hate crime, then that hate was already there. There were many other issues already swaying them in that direction, which meant that even without the cartoons, something was already going to push them over the edge.

They. Are. Drawings. That's all. Nothing more. And treating one religion differently because of the actions of an extremist wing of that religion (whether by their actions or those who oppose their actions) does nothing but give that extremist group more power. Justification for their actions and the ability to radicalise more Muslims, which in turn fuels more hate crimes and innocent Muslims get caught in the crossfire.

Treat all religions equally.

Make fun of them all.

Sonics2k

Brown Bomber wrote: »

2. Why single out Muslims for punishment, given:

And again BB, you miss the point.

All religions should be open to humour, jokes and criticism.

This is not about taking one group aside and insulting them, it's about making jokes about -all- off them.

Brown Bomber

Penn
Treat all religions equally

Make fun of them all. .

Sonics2k wrote: »

And again BB, you miss the point.
All religions should be open to humour, jokes and criticism.

This is not about taking one group aside and insulting them, it's about making jokes about -all- off them.

Prove it then. As much as I don't want to see them, produce the single most offensive and stereotypical image of historic clergyman Martin Luther King JR. The image should highlight his ethnicity and the stereotypical, racist perceptions of a black man. Also, post the single most offensive image you can find of a Jewish man. Draw on the centuries of anti-semitism and negative stereotpyes of Jews that carried by are racists - such as their physical features and their stereotypical behaviour.

Then add to the image "I support the dissemination of this image".

I suspect the mods will bail you out though.

MagicMarker

Hi BB, I could be wrong here, but I don't think anyone was posting pictures of Mohammed to make fun of his physical features or the colour of his skin.

Just so ya know loike...

Penn

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Prove it then. As much as I don't want to see them, produce the single most offensive and stereotypical image of historic clergyman Martin Luther King JR. The image should highlight his ethnicity and the stereotypical, racist perceptions of a black man. Also, post the single most offensive image you can find of a Jewish man. Draw on the centuries of anti-semitism and negative stereotpyes of Jews that carried by are racists - such as their physical features and their stereotypical behaviour.

Then add to the image "I support the dissemination of this image".

I suspect the mods will bail you out though.

I can only speak for myself here, but I think you'll find that I haven't posted any pictures of Muhammad to begin with. As I said in the previous thread, I support the idea of Draw Muhammad Day as I support the freedoms and rights it's trying to highlight, but I disagree with the execution and think that people shouldn't draw Muhammad unless that's what they were going to do anyway. To me, that's what having that right and freedom of speech is about, the ability to do it if you want to do it. I have never had the want to draw Muhammad, so I never have.

Just like I don't have the want to post the pictures you described, and don't particularly want to search for them either. You may think I'm chickening out of your challenge, but let's face it, it's a loaded challenge anyway and is something you are completely blowing out of proportion.

Right now, this is the only picture I feel like posting:

MagicMarker

Of course, if it were the case that by posting pictures of MLK Jnr that I could be threatened with my life, then I'm all for a post pictures of MLK day....

Here, I'll start....



OMG I'm such a bigot posting a picture of MLK OMG

Sonics2k

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Prove it then. As much as I don't want to see them, produce the single most offensive and stereotypical image of historic clergyman Martin Luther King JR. The image should highlight his ethnicity and the stereotypical, racist perceptions of a black man. Also, post the single most offensive image you can find of a Jewish man. Draw on the centuries of anti-semitism and negative stereotpyes of Jews that carried by are racists - such as their physical features and their stereotypical behaviour.

Then add to the image "I support the dissemination of this image".

I suspect the mods will bail you out though.

Well, ignoring the -pathetic- excuse of trying to divert to an actual person and not a Prophet or a 'leader' of a religion. I'll go ahead and link to the -very first image- I got when typing in Martin Luther King funny.

http://i.qkme.me/35ubyu.jpg

Typed in 'Jewish funny'
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_XBcVB7CTPCM/TO9VQuc44WI/AAAAAAAADz4/dMonTSW6P_g/s1600/funny+jew.gif

Typed in KKK funny
http://www.frumsatire.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/gay-black-kkk.jpg

Oh hey look, seeing as you want to take this completely away from the topic.
Here's an Irish one
http://www.funnywallphotos.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/meanwhile.jpg

Now pipe down and deal with it BB. It's not racism, it's a wonderful form of equality and showing we are -not- afraid of psychopathic fundamentalists.

Keep in mind these came from a quick google. Anyone can get tonnes of images showing varying levels of humour by visiting specific sites.

Sarky

I like how he started a thread on the Islam forum to drum up support, but the only reply is an Islam mod essentially saying don't be silly.

robindch

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Right, then you should be able to point out the topics that Breivik doesn't agree on with a Zionist then, or more accurately the topics that Breivik believes in that excludes him from being a Zionist.

You'll have to ask Breivik that, since he was the one who clearly implied he wasn't a zionist. All I'm doing is showing you that your claim that he is a zionist is wrong, by directly quoting Breivik. If you disagree with Breivik about Breivik's views, then Breivik really is the guy you need to speak with.

Anyhow as I said above, your continued inability to distinguish between partial support and complete support of a political view indicates that there is no point in continuing this line of argument. Feel free if you like to continue to make that false claim; I've said my bit.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Also, post the single most offensive image you can find of a Jewish man.

For somebody who posts at such great length, and with such persistence, about the detrimental effects of imagery that people might find offensive, it's rather surprising to see you demand it, especially since you professed to feel "outrage" at the prospect of a "wedge" being driven between cultures which might help "benefit extremists":

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I am outraged. These idiotic events place a wedge between two cultures which pushes people from the middle to the fringes benefitting extremists on both sides.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Also, post the single most offensive image you can find of a Jewish man. Draw on the centuries of anti-semitism and negative stereotpyes of Jews that carried by are racists - such as their physical features and their stereotypical behaviour. [...] I suspect the mods will bail you out though.

In any case, you've indirectly asked for some help with religious humor, and that's something that the forum certainly can provide you with! Here's an image which appeared on the religious humor thread some while back -- is this what you were looking for?

Brown Bomber

robindch wrote: »

You'll have to ask Breivik that, since he was the one who clearly implied he wasn't a zionist. All I'm doing is showing you that your claim that he is a zionist is wrong, by directly quoting Breivik. If you disagree with Breivik about Breivik's views, then Breivik really is the guy you need to speak with.

... and yet you still won't define "Zionist".

robindch wrote: »

Here's an image which appeared on the religious humor thread some while back -- is this what you were looking for?

Obviously not. The racist "joke" is anti-Muslim/Pakistani; not anti-Jewish/Black. The "joke" is that Pakistani Muslims are anti-semitic and irrational.

What I am looking for is for people to post the most vile stereotypes related to Jews and black clergyman MLK as an expression of their freedom of expression and for them to proudly declare that they support the dissemination of bigoted caricatures.

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

The "joke" is that Pakistani Muslims are anti-semitic and irrational.

No it's not. It's depicting the hypocrisy of those who object to any depictions of Mohammed, while having no objection to the vile caricatures of other people.
It's not making a generalisation about Pakistanis any more that it's making a generalisation about how all Danes draw cartoons of Mohammed.

Unless you are now arguing that making a criticism about a certain sub set of a people is the same as a criticism of all of those people...

Penn

King Mob wrote: »

No it's not. It's depicting the hypocrisy of those who object to any depictions of Mohammed, while having no objection to the vile caricatures of other people.
It's not making a generalisation about Pakistanis any more that it's making a generalisation about how all Danes draw cartoons of Mohammed.

Unless you are now arguing that making a criticism about a certain sub set of a people is the same as a criticism of all of those people...

Besides, the Danish guy has clearly drawn a Sikh man, showing that Danish people are racist as they can't tell the difference

robindch

Brown Bomber wrote: »

The "joke" is that Pakistani Muslims are anti-semitic and irrational.

Er, no, you didn't get the joke. It's simply showing how silly it is for one person to post offensive imagery and then complain when somebody else does it.

That's not anti-semitism or irrationality. On the contrary, as King Mob points out, that's hypocrisy.